« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
" the said Scindia, and that in consequence “ thereof, the said Bristow did, amongst other
things, apply to the Nabob Vizier for a certain " allowance to be made to the said Myrza, and “ for the regular payment thereof, and that
certain allowance was accordingly settled by “ the said Vizier on the said Myrza ; and the " said Warren Hastings says, that information of " the above transactions was transmitted to the 66 Board of Council ; and that a letter from the “ said Vizier was received on the 23d of August “ 1782, containing certain representations of the “ distresses of himself and family; and he admits " that no order was made by him the said " Warren Hastings, for the provision of any of " the said family, or for the return of the said
Myrza ; but the said Warren Hastings denies “ that he was guilty of any cruelty, inhumanity,
or corruption, or of any misconduct whatso64 ever in the matters aforesaid.”
Continuation of the Charge :-" That some time, in or about the month of December “ 1783, the Nabob Behadre, another of the brothers of the said Nabob of Oude, did represent " to the said Bristow, that he the said Nabob “ Behadre had not received a farthing of his al* lowance for the current year, and was without “ food ; and being wounded by an assassin who 7
« had also inurdered his aunt in the very capital " of Oude, the said Nabob Behadre had not a “ daum to pay the surgeon, who attended him (for the love of God alone ; that at or about “ the period of the above representation, the “ said Bristow was recalled, and the said Warren
Hastings proceeded up to Lucknow, but did “ not inquire into the said representations trans“ mitted by the said Bristow to Calcutta, nor did “ order relief."
Mr. Hastings's answer to the part of the Charge last read :" And the said Warren Hastings “ further says, that on the 29th January 1784, “ after the recall of the said Bristow, he the said “ Bristow did transmit to the Governour Gene. " ral and Council two letters, one dated the 28th “ of December 1783, the other the 7th January “ 1784, purporting to be written by the said 56 Nabob Behadre, addressed to him the said " Bristow, to the effect in the said Article stated; “ and the said Warren Hastings admits, that « when at Lucknow he did not institute an in
quiry into the supposed transaction in the said “ seventeenth Article stated, or make any order " concerning the said Behadre, and he denies " that it was his duty so to do." Here is the name of this Nabob from a list of the jaghirdars stated by Mr. Purling, page 485 printed Minutės.
Amongst the names of jaghirdars, the times when granted, and the amount of the jaghires, there occurs that of the Nabob Behadre, with a grant of a jaghire, of the amount of 20,000 rupees.
[The Lord Chancellor here remarked, that what had been just read was matter of the seventeenth Article of the Charge and parts of the answer to it; and that upon looking back to the former proceedings, it has escaped his attention. if any matter contained in the seventeenth Article had been made matter of the charge. That it therefore seemed to him that it could not be brought in upon a reply, not having been made matter of the charge originally.]
Mr. Burke. My Lords, I have to say to this, that I believe you have heard these facts made matter of charge by the House of Commons, that I conceive they have been admitted by the Prisoner; and that the Commons have nothing to do with the proofs of any thing in their charge, which is fully and in terms admitted. The proofs which 'they have produced to your Lordships, were upon matters which were contested; but here the facts are admitted in the fullest manner; we neither have abandoned them, intended to abandon' them, or. ever shall abandon them
į we have made them, as a charge, 'upon record. The answers to them have been recorded, which
answers are complete admissions of every fact.in the charge.
[Lörd Chancellor. I do not make myself understood. The objection is not that there has not been evidence given upon the seventeenth Article, but at the close of the case on the part of the Managers for the House of Commons, no mention having been made of the matter contained in the seventeenth Article; that therefore, although it may all have been admitted by the answer to be true, yet in justice if from that :an. swer you ground the charge, it is necessary the defendant should be heard upon it.]
Mrs Burke. If your Lordships choose that the defendant shall be heard upon it, we have no kind of objection, nor ever had, or proposed an objection to the defendant being heard upon it. Your Lordships know that the defendant's counsel value themselves : upon having abandoned their defence against certain parts of the charge; your Lordships know that they declared that they broke off thus in the middle of their defence, in order to expedite this business.
[Lord Chancellor. : Referring to the proceedings, I think it a matter perfectly clear, that in the course of the charge, after certain articles had been gone through, the Managers for the Commons closed the case there, leaving therefore all the other articles, excepting those that had
been discussed, as matters standing with the answers against them, but not insisted upon in making out the charge. Of course therefore if the defendant had gone into any of those articles, the defendant must have been stopped upon them, because he would then have been making a case in defence to that which had not been made a case in the prosecution; the objection therefore is not at all that no evidence has been examined. To be sure it would be an answer to that to say, you are now proceeding upon an admission ; but even upon those facts that are admitted (if the facts are admitted that are insisted upon as matter in charge) that should come in the original state of the cause, and the defendant in common justice must be heard upon that, and then and then only, come the observations in reply.]
Mr. Burke. We do not know, nor are informed, that any charge, information, or indictment, that is before the Court, and upon record, and is not denied by the defendant, does not stand in full force against him. We conceive it to be so; we conceive it to be agreeable to the analogy of all proceedings; and the reason why we did not go into and insist upon it was, that having a very long cause before us, and having the most fall and complete admission upon
this subject, we did not proceed further in it. The defendant defends himself by averring that it was